Landlords have nothing to fear from the Renters’ Rights Bill – Pennycook

I am delighted Pennycook has made this statement because it does at least confirm my fears that, he and his colleagues. have absolutely no understanding of the PRS and neither do they appreciate or wish to understand the problems and issues facing landlords.

I caught a bit of Mr Pennycook being interviewed on LBC yesterday. Seems he's looking to professionalise the BTL industry and he qualified that as more 'build to rent' professional landlords.

Either it won't happen as the council will be trying to specify 'affordable' home percentages or if it does happen it'll be the usual suspects that give a bad service and are untouchable because they are too big.

I just looked up Pennycook on WIkipaedia. Seems he is MP for Greenwich & Woolwich; quite an impressive CV, and he seems quite a smart guy.

Interestingly he is quoted in October 2018 regarding newly qualified teachers leaving the profession: "The crisis in teacher retention in London did not begin the day before yesterday, yet this Tory government still has no coherent plan to address the problem and no appetite to get to grips with the underlying drivers – workload, stagnant pay, rising living costs and a lack of genuinely affordable housing to rent and buy – that lie behind this worrying trend."

To me, there are parallels with the current housing crisis - wouldn't it be helpful if he applied some of the same principles and logic to realise that the present situation is of long standing and the proposed Renters Bill is not even going to be the sticking plaster he imagines, but is instead going to make things a lot worse...

Even with section 24 revoked it will not be a business any sane person would want to stay in. The odds are against us. Shelter (who shelters sweet f… all ) have done a blindingly good job. Polly’s tactics will probably get her a life peerage. And the tenants will applaud! The red queen will be hailed as the tenants saviour. Reeves will be a saint!

With Section 21 gone, the unintended consequences of trying to prove anti-social behavior as a reason, would be seriously not good and potentially expensive!
My ex-tenant (on single parent benefits) denied to the council that her boyfriend lived with her, was verbally abusive to the neighbours, had noisy visitors late at night and parked her car blocking the pavement... They accepted her story. I would have had to pay for a private detective to gather all the evidence... And meanwhile the neighbours living in fear for coming foreword! This is not uncommon behaviour in the UK!

on a positive note....all the tenants that voted for these clowns may not be able to vote for them again.

You can't put 'shop doorway' or 'third tent on the left' as an address needed for electoral roll purposes as far as I know....

Reply to the comment left by Mark Alexander - Founder of Property118 at 11/09/2024 - 10:54
Perfectly said Mark!

Its all a load of Poppycock!

Playing devil’s advocate and as a landlord since 1990 who is reasonably clued up on the formation of damp and mould in properties from the perspective of sorting out occurrences and having many examples to relate how it is the tenants use of a particular property that is key - it seems I would be able to take out a tenancy (after outbidding all other applicants by paying the full ask of the rent which will obviously now be pitched well above the actual market rate due to the new legislation) and give my 2 months notice day one - allowing me time to create a mouldy home without leaving any trace of how it was done and calling in one of the many no win no fee outfits who will be all over the new legislation.

Without a tenants register to record details of those treating the PRS like AirB&B lite at best - I could then repeat the process in a different area.

I don’t expect any politician to have any real world nous about the implications of their naive decisions (look at Reeves and the ridiculous haste to remove WFP from the 2 million less well off pensioners who will be at serious risk of illness or worse in the coming months rather than a considered and fair change in the rules) - but I would expect the head of NRLA to have a bit more to say rather than doing an impression of the nodding Insurance company dog.

actually the headline on the post is probably right. Its tenants who should be fearing this coming to fruition!

The power still ultimately lies with the LL as to whether they offer a tenancy (or not) at the end of the day.

The more concerning and restrictive the rules are a tenancy is given will ultimately determine what is willing to be offered.

Less rentals or the same amount but higher rents?

It's never going to be the case that there will be MORE properties to rent as a result of these plans, so the idea can only be to keep existing tenants where they are...indefinitely?

Perhaps it really does need tenants themselves to experience what this will mean, before the situation is turned back on its head?

When a politician says "you have nothing to fear" then be afraid, very afraid !